Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Scientist (song)/archive1

The Scientist (song)

 * Nominator(s): Luckich (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely one of the greatest songs of all time. And the article is wonderful; please see it and if there are mistakes I will solve them. Luckich (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I absolutely agree this is the best song from the best album of its era. Are you familiar enough with the FA criteria and the article and its sources to address any comments? Reviewers often have queries about an article's comprehensiveness. Have you compared it to other FAs about songs? Paint It Black is the most similar I can think of but we have dozens (hundreds?) of FAs on songs. You don't seem to have made many edits to the article to prepare it for FAC. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

 * To piggyback off the comments from, according to the page statistics, the nominator has made six edits to the article and is not one of the main contributors to the article. Have you tried reaching out to any of the article's primary contributors to see how they would feel about a potential FAC?


 * That being said, I do notice some issues with the article on a superficial glance. It is unusual to cite the release date and genre in the infobox when that information should be in the article itself with the appropriate citations. The Bleeping Computer report is only in the lead and not in the article, which is inappropriate as the lead should be an overview of the article and not have original information outside of that. The caption for the audio sample does not provide a strong enough reason for including a piece of non-free media. I also think it is jarring that the actual article starts off with (Lead singer Chris Martin wrote...) without introducing the actual band Coldplay first, which is not brought up by name until the "Release" section. There is a citation needed tag in the "Release" section and an original research tag in the "Other versions" section. These are examples of issues that should have been addressed prior to a FAC.
 * Again, this is just from looking at it fairly quickly, but if I notice these kinds of errors, then I do not think it is ready for a FAC. Have you considered putting this article through the peer review process instead? I think it would benefit from that prior to a FAC. I hope these comments do not come across as rude or overwhelming. I am always happy to see a song article in the FAC space and to see a new face in the process so I hope this does not discourage you from working on the article further. I just do not think this article is ready. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Coord note
Hi Luckich, based on the points raised above (as well as some statements missing citations or being tagged as needing clarification) I expect to archive this shortly and would advise working with other editors of the article on any future nomination. One thing I am curious about though is how you created this nomination -- the edit history of the article talk page doesn't indicate you used per the FAC instructions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I assume it was simply done by copying an existing nom page and putting in this article's name, I can't think of anything else. Anyway, FTR, to help FACbot do its thing when I archive this I've dummied up the FAC template at the top of the article's talk page and we'll see how we go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)